cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Recommended UV Filter for EF 24-105mm (77mm)

TexasTea
Contributor

I'm looking at getting a clear UV filter for my lens and am unfamiliar with the top brands that won't degrade the image quality.  Any input would be greatly appreciated!

42 REPLIES 42

I went with the B+W clear MRC Nano.

Thanks again for all the input.

Good choice.  I've never been disappointed with B+W.  I have their nano CPL, it's a great filter.

Waste of money!

 

Should have a polarizing filter.

Seriously, get over it.  The horse is dead.

 

I've been through 4 UV filters, two of which unquestionably saved the lens, and arguably a third.  I'm well ahead financially from having used protective filters.




@thorn wrote:

What do peopel think of the Canon ef Filters?

 

Just purchased the 100-400 usm lens.

Want to add a UV filter.

Know about Hoya and B&W, but why not a Canon filter for a Canon lens?


 

Do not add a filter to that lens! It really hates filters. I know many people who have thought they needed one, paid a lot for it,  then took it off and never used it again after seeing how much even the best filter effects image quality on the 100-400mm.

 

Canon filters seem fine optically, but do not appear to be multi-coated, probably are just single coated... and seem to be about 50% or more higher cost than comparable quality from other brands. A Canon 77mm UV costs $60. A B+W SC 010 UV costs $40. A Hoya MC UV costs about $30.  Chances are that those Canon filters are outsourced from another manufacturer, anyway. I doubt seriously Canon has a filter manufacturing facility of their own and bet they are Kenko or Hoya. For the same or less money I can get an even higher quality, fully multi-coated filter in another brand. Hoya HMC is about $55 in 77mm size. B+W MRC is a little bit more... $70.

 

Brass filter mounting rings used to be important when filters threaded directly into aluminium, steel or magnesium lens barrels. But now most lenses have plastic filter threads, which are far less prone to binding and see no benefit from brass filter mounts. Still, B+W higher end line of filters, among others, use brass filter frames anyway.

 

All manufacturers make various "lines" of filters in different quality and price levels.

 

B+W has lower priced, aluminum framed, non-coated or single coated filters. You can step to a multi-coated filter. Then you can step up to a brass framed, multi-coated filter. And then you can step up even farther to a nano-multi-coated version. And in some types, such as polarizer, there are ultra-premium with special sealing or special "slim" versions.

 

For example, a 77mm B+W Circular Polarizer can cost...

 

$270 for an Extra Wide (oversize) C-Pol Kaéseman MRC (standard multi-coatings)

$162 for a C-Pol Slim Kaëseman MRC (thin mount, specially sealed & extra high quality, standard multi-coatings)

$160 for a C-Pol Kaëseman (specially sealed, extra high quality) XS Pro MRC "Nano" (latest multi-coatings, easier to clean)

$145 for a C-Pol Kaëseman MRC (specially sealed, extra high quality, standard multi-coatings)

$112 for a C-Pol MRC (standard multi-coatings)

$80 for a C-Pol SC (single anti-reflective coating)

 

All the above use high quality Schott glass and a brass mounting ring, except the "Slim" which uses an aluminum ring.

 

I think they also offer an even cheaper uncoated version with an aluminum mounting ring, but the store I looked at doesn't stock it (B&H Photo in NY).  

 

Other good brands are Hoya, Marumi, Heliopan and Singh Ray, among others. Many of these offer a selection at different price points, similar to B+W.

 

A UV serves no real purpose on a digital camera, other than some mythical "lens protection". Use the lens cap and matching lens hood that were supplied with the lens (or are sold separately). They do a better job protecting it than any thin piece of glass ever could.

 

Back when I shot film, I used UV filters a lot because many films were overly sensitive to UV light. I think that might be where folks (including the filter manufacturers and retailers) got the idea of "protection" filters... though pros were actually using them for different reasons. Digital cameras have built in UV filtration, so there's no real purpose to using a UV filter on one. (Similarly, "warming" filters that were popular to use with film as well, will be cancelled out by digital cameras' auto white balance.)

 

But, yes, I do have UV or "protection" filters for all my lenses that can be fitted with a filter. However, I leave them stored in my camera bag until theyre actually needed... such as shooting in a sand storm or at the beach where there is salt spray (which is nasty stuff to try to clean off optics). The rest of the time I leave filters off.... don't want anything to risk additional flare in images. Ánd when I hire 2nd shooters, I try to remember to ask them to remove any "protection" filters, too. I've had to do too much extra post processing to correct for the flaws filters caused in strong lighting situations.

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________

@Skirball wrote:

Seriously, get over it.  The horse is dead.

 

I've been through 4 UV filters, two of which unquestionably saved the lens, and arguably a third.  I'm well ahead financially from having used protective filters.


 

I don't believe claims that a "filter saved my lens". I bet most of the time the lens would have been just fine without it. No one can prove it, either way.

 

In fact, several times I've seen lenses damaged by filters that were broken and driven into the front of the lens. Maybe the lens would have been damaged anyway. Or maybe it would have been fine if the filter weren't there. Who knows.

 

There really is no way of testing it one way or another, but in general my money is better spent on insurance than on "protection" filters... and my images are the better for not using filters unless they are really needed for one reason or another (besides "protection", usually).  

 

It's always hotly contested, whether to protect lenses with a filter or not. So do what you want. But any filter you get you might test to see how much image quality it's costing you. Try it under different "real world" conditions, and decide for yourself if you can live with the image quality it's costing you, if it's worth the somewhat questionable feeling of extra security you might get from using it. 

 

***********
Alan Myers

San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & PRINTROOM 

Quite. Your picture will be degraded. Use a lens hood, lens cap and take a litttle care, it's not diifficult.

In 60 years I've not had a  problem because of the afore mentioned.

A Polarizing filter - now that could be beneficial.

But still I'm loathe to add another two air-to-lens surfaces.

Some people say that a Protective, or UV, filter reduces the quality of an image. They are referring to an extremely high level of quality that is not required by most people on this planet. If you want to ensure that your image quality does not deteriorate, get a good quality filter and keep it clean. And in that instance where the filter may introduce 'flare' or 'ghosting' simply take it off.  How many of you forget, you can remove the filter just like the lens cap!  It does not become one with the lens.

 

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!

There are lots of little things that filters can do. Roger Cicala of Lensrentals writes a blog on his site (he has a lot of very interesting articles) -- and in one article he demonstrates what bad filters can do by stacking a LOT of bad filters to intensify the effect. You can see it here: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters

However, just "one" filter probably isn't go to do so much to cloud and soften an image.

But just "one" filter can create ghosting and the difference between having a filter on vs. off can be quite a noticeable difference where ghosting is an issue. The front element of the real lens (not the filter) will reflect a tiny amount of light back forward onto the filter which, in turn, reflects it right back to the lens again. This results in "ghosts" of the image (usually only bright points within the image create strong enough reflections).

But this can happen with any type of filter... not just UV. When buying filters (polarizers, neutral density filters, ... or even UV) you always want filters with anti-reflective coatings to reduce this issue.
Tim Campbell
5D III, 5D IV, 60Da


@ebiggs1 wrote:

Some people say that a Protective, or UV, filter reduces the quality of an image. They are referring to an extremely high level of quality that is not required by most people on this planet. If you want to ensure that your image quality does not deteriorate, get a good quality filter and keep it clean. And in that instance where the filter may introduce 'flare' or 'ghosting' simply take it off.  How many of you forget, you can remove the filter just like the lens cap!  It does not become one with the lens.

 


I have seen what I consider very signficiant loss of image quality due to filters... not just minor effects. A lot depends upon the quality of the filter. But any added optics in front of a lens is going to have some effect. Maybe a little. Maybe a lot. It's a range of types of effect: ghost flare, veiling flare, tints, uneven effects, image softening, focus errors, "crazy" bokeh, increased chromatic aberrations and more.

 

As a rule, better quality, multi-coated filters under ideal conditions minimize loss with most lenses.

 

But some lenses really don't play well with filters (the EF100-400L is an example).

 

And who knows when I'll find myself shooting into the light and seriously challenging my lens to get a good shot.

 

I paid good money for high quality optics to make good images... I'm not going to mindlessly compromise every single shot I make with that investment by sticking a filter on it 24/7/365 (even tho I can remove it, if I remember... and have time to do so)  in hopes that a thin piece of fragile glass might someday protect my precious from an unknown danger.

 

To me that makes a great deal more sense to just leave the filter off the lens and only install it on those rather rare occasions where there actually are some risks to the lens (or when I want the effects of a polarizer... or want the effects of a neutral density filter... or any other type of filter).

 

This way, there's much less chance of forgetting to remove the filter and ruining an image. Or, if I do remember, to find myself still fumbling to remove the filter and stick it safely away in my bag, while a great shot opportunity passes me by.

 

IMO a quick and easy to remove clip-on lens cap does a far better job protecting the lens (as well as protecting the filter, if and when one is being used).

 

Here are some actual examples of what can happen in an image when a filter is used. I deliberately used a B+W MRC C-Pol on my Tokina  AT-X 12-24mm f4 , to see what would happen in a strongly lit situation....

 

First, there were a number of ghost flares occured various places in the image (some do not show up at Internet resolutions, but are obvious at higher magnifications and in greater enlargement such as prints of the image)....

 

Detail 1 

 

Both the lens and filter are high quality and resistant to flare, so these ghosts are fairly minimal and rather easily cloned out in Photoshop. Still, it's extra work that could have been avoided.

 

Worse was slight, general softening of the image that increased chromatic aberrations...

 

Detail 2

 

This was stronger toward the edges (above), as might be expected, but occured to some extent throughout the image...

 

Detail 3

 

CA is much harder, though still possible to correct to some degree.

 

There also was overall veiling flare that required boosting contrast and color saturation to correct. But the quality of the lens and filter was such that there weren't any ugly color tints (which I've seen filters cause in other strong lighting situations, and are a pain to correct when they occur only on part of the image).

 

The end result of the corrected image in a size and resolution for the Internet isn't too bad...

 

Pigeon Point Sunset

 

... but it would be hard to make a good print of any significant size from the image.

 

It's sooooo much easier to just not use a filter - except when one is really called for - and  have minimal "corrective" work needed on the finished image...

 

Pacific sunset

 

Canon EF 20mm f2.8 was used on 5DII for the above, without any filter (shooting very quickly, handheld, because light was fading fast).

 

You also have to watch out for uneven filter effects. The veiling tint mentioned above is one example. Another is the way a C-Pol tends to have variable effect especially on wide lenses and depending upon where the sun is in the sky. For the image below, I deliberately used a C-Pol to darken the sky more behind the lighthouse...

 

Pigeon Point

 

Above was, once again, EF 20/2.8 lens on 5D Mark II, with B+W MRC C-Pol. The uneven sky was deliberate here, but might not be in other situations. There's a tiny bit of loss of fine detail due to the filter (even though it's another high quality, multi-coated B+W), but it's minimal here because the camera captures a lot of detail and the sun was well out of the image, off to the left of the camera. In this case, I felt it was worth the slight loss as a trade-off for the positive aspects of the filter's effect. In other cases I've had images I felt were ruined by the uneven effects of a C-Pol.

 

In addition to the cap, a lens hood also provides good physical protection for a lens. Especially with telephoto lenses, a nice deep hood will provide really good physical protection while shooting. And since the correct hood properly installed cannot possibly have negative effect on images, it's something I always recommend using... even when it's a little inconvenient (such as when using a filter that needs to be rotated, like a C-Pol).

 

When I first got an EF-S 10-22mm and saw how it's rather large hood was a pain to fit into my camera bag, I thought maybe I could just get by without it. After all, that hood is so shallow and that lens is one of the most flare resistant of all the ultrawides. So to answer my own question, I ran a quick test shooting the same scene with and without the hood (and no filter either)...

 

10-22mm with hood

 

10-22mm without hood

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think the results of this quick test sort of speak for themselves.

 

In the end, I'd simply suggest anyone who wants to do so go ahead and get the filter... But don't simply accept the recommendations from a sales person in a store or  faceless individuals like me on Internet forums. Do some with and without comparison tests for yourself, so you know exactly how it's going to effect your images, then can decide whether or not it's worth it, and are prepared to deal with it in different situations. The above lens hood comparison convinced me, yeah, it's worth the extra effort of carrying around the rather large, matched hood for the EF-S 10-22mm. Do your own challenging lighting shots with and without the filter, to see how much work you need to do to correct for the problems the filter causes (if the image is even recoverable). Over three decades of shooting with all sorts of gear have convinced me that filters merely for purpose of "protection" are more often a problem than a solution, don't really reduce the risk very much anyway, and that my lenses are better off "naked" most of the time.

 

***********
Alan Myers

San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & PRINTROOM 

 






 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I'm not going to mindlessly compromise every single shot I make with that investment by sticking a filter on it ..."

 

Than don't.  No one is forcing you to use a filter but than again you are not "most people on the planet".  Are you?

But than again you know it and I know it, there is enough difference between two exact lenses that will introduce more 'blips'

in an image than a high quality filter does.  Your arguments only make sense to pixel-peepers and not to "most people".

 

If we use your reasoning, I should never use my 1D with it's puny 4 MP sensor anymore because a 5D Mk III with it's 23 MP sensor can blow up photos to fit a bill board.  That's just as nuts.  Most people post on the net or make a 4x6. 5x7 or 8x10.  And to top that off they print at Walmart or on a $79 ink jet.

 

Actaualy this has been beat to death enough, all over the web, and I simply don't care.  Use one or not.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!
Announcements